Redsox

The lady who wanted to make new costumes for the deities, how can we judge her for her desire to please krishna in that way when that desire has been placed there by krishna Himself? Also, if you try to listen and hear , listen and hear , and not think about or ask questions about krishna so that you can be an Uttama Bhaktha then are you doing this for krishna's pleasure or your pleasure to be an Uttama Bhakta? Or is this the wrong question to ask?

This begs another question, isn't krishna already self-satisfied? Are we then only satisfying ourselves by going after krishna?

Wow, this indeed has been a good discussion. Thank you

Is this prabhupada meant then? Do what you are supposed to do in life. If you are a teacher, teach... if you are a doctor then heal with the best of your ability etc, but do it in the mindset that you are acting for the Lord, hence quickly rise to the spiritual world because of that mindset?

Yea, thats what I think too. You said "play the part of Hiranyakasipu", which makes me wonder whether possibly everyone is just a devotee in this material creation , and is only playing a role to ultimately please krishna.

Dear Beggar, The quotations you provided basically put me under more confusion, where I cannot understand how Krishna who controls every aspect of living entity's modes of actions can ever get offended by it. Anyway, I understand it as how bhaktajan says it, basically that Krishna acts only to reciprocate the pure devotee's desires. In that sense too then even when you consider it a lila, and if krishna is sincerely only pleasing his devotee by acting "angry" , then too the pure devotee according to Bhagavad Gita cannot think badly about anyone... then krishna also doesn't get offended because his devotee doesn't get offended. So my question is how krishna can get offended (EDIT: with our without) any intent of offense from the living entity that is solely in His control. Unless ofcourse, that living entity is bhisma and its the soul's desire to see lord in an "angry" form.

Thank you for that, this makes alot of sense when put in this way.

Hmm, I thought we already established that we eternally exist as individuals. I am talking about the merging with krishna. The emphasis on the union with krishna, where krishna is felt at every limb of the body.... that the spiritual body feels krishna in every part of it at the pinnacle of its realization of Him, but isn't this a merger then with krishna? Also are you saying that no merger with krishna is possible without madhurya bhava? How about Ramanuja? How about people like him who gained moksha? what do you think happened to Ramanuja?

loosely translated, I thought krishna meant "the all attractive one". loosely translated , I thought Narayana meant "The lord of all beings", some say it means "the abode of beings" . So are you saying the perspective of the bhakta changes when the soul no longer sees God as the supporter of beings, but looks upon Him as the all attractive one? Or are you stating that the bhakta leaves the ritualistic worship of Narayana? I have another question, why would the bhakta have any need for any ritual when Sriman Narayana is in front of the soul in Vaikunta?

so feeling krishna in every single atom of the spiritual body is not merging with krishna? What are you doing in that instance if you are not merging, your spiritual body into krishna? If you say that you are hoping for union with krishna , so doesn't that make the merging into krishna the result of that relationship?

Well, thanks for your answer, but krishna states in Bhagavad Gita that a living entity does not do anything and all is done by the interactions between the three modes of material nature. Also, He further says that He is the one who controls the material nature. Then, how is it so that He is offended by some interaction between the three modes when He is not under the control of it (He is the one who controls it, right?)? Can you please tell me how krishna can be offended?

Thank you for that. , I will read it over and I will ask if I have any questions.

I always thought merging with krishna is an ultimate form of union with Him, because you are completely one with Him then, you never leave Him and He never leaves you at that point. I thought these relationships (servant, friendship/brother, mother/father, husband/lover) with krishna are a way to find our union with Him, but some say this is spiritual death...can anyone explain this more to me? thanks in advance.

Thanks

I don't know , when I read gita, it seemed like Krishna is a non-judging supreme person who is all full of love, compassion, , mercy and above "offense", and it just seemed like he saves us from our wrongs than judge and punish us because of them.

Thank you for that Bhaktajan, that makes lot of sense. I guess what is really bad is the desire for wealth rather than wealth itself. So krishna protects us from the psychological dependence on wealth, I guess He doesn't necessarily make us poor as if it was a law to get close to Him, because how can wealth be bad? - wealth is another aspect of His power, what is bad is our desire for something impermanent instead of being free to love krishna. I guess this is why kings like Janaka gained krishna's association and friendship while still remaining extremely rich materially , it was because they weren't attached to that wealth , they were attached to krishna. Thank you very much for your time taken to answer my questions (In the simple way that you did). It takes me a while to dig through the quotations and such, but the answer hits me like a rock sometimes

Can you tell me how this happens? what is the story? Do you have a web-link to the story anywhere?

Yes that helps alot. Thats what my friend said too and it makes sense. It is our own mind and intentions that matter. This is why we need to keep a close watch on the mind and purify it of evil intentions with the help of hari nama. That way, we don't judge or offend good people unecessarily and reap bad benefits because of it.

I am lost in your quotations. Why would wealth take one away from Krishna when wealth is also another aspect of Srimati Radharani? If you could, please explain in your own words , it would help simpletons like me. Any time spent is much appreciated.

I had a discussion with my friend and she gave me a good answer. She said that it is just karma. The devotee whom you supposedly "offend" is really not offended, neither is krishna who is beyond the offense, but the bad intentions within you that made you act in a bad way give you bad reactions. Ofcourse, we say that it comes from krishna because all results good or bad are really given to the individual by krishna. Ofcourse, if you do something without any negative intentions, then there is no offense, and if anyone gets offended when there are no such feelings from you, then its their own problem. Thank you for your help

Okay, if you want me to wait, I will wait , re-read your posts, see if it makes sense, if it doesn't, I will post back. Thanks for your time and patience.

Again, I am sorry if I offend you. The fact is, I am not really challenging your belief system, I am merely overwhelmed by the loopholes that I see exist. For instance, you said the dust that exists at the lotus feet of the devotee are also pure living entities. Now according to how I read Bhagavad Gita, a pure devotee or a living entity is something that is dear to krishna. If that is so, then whatever is dear to krishna as said by krishna in Bhagavad Gita never gets offended. Then how can it be so that a devotee like Srila prabhupada or the dust at his lotus feet be offended when no such concept of offense exists within a pure devotee like Srila Prabhupada? Is it that I am reading this wrong? Maybe Krishna doesn't mean that pure living entity never gets angry or offended , or is it so that those who see offense are not pure? Again, I sincerely apologize, I am not trying to find loopholes, maybe I am just thinking too much into it.

But you didn't answer my question. Are you saying I am not intelligent enough to understand why or how krishna gets offended?

But isn't it the three modes of material nature that cause the offense? Arent' they under Krishna's control? Do you get what I am saying? Please know that I am not trying to challenge your belief system here. I am just trying to understand it. When I asked the same type of questions at a satsang, I got a very unsatisfactory answer just like this one, but if I am not satisfied with that specific answer and ask again, the swami gets offended and he thinks that I am challenging him and trying to prove him wrong or ignorant, when I was only trying to sincerely clear a doubt in my mind.